Kakalia v. USA

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2026

Docket24-5907

StatusUnpublished

This text of Kakalia v. USA (Kakalia v. USA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kakalia v. USA, (9th Cir. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD P. KAKALIA, No. 24-5907 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00390-LEK-WRP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF HAWAII; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Edward P. Kakalia appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment

order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kakalia’s motion

for reconsideration because Kakalia failed to establish any basis for relief. See id.

at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kakalia’s contention that the district

court was biased. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)

(explaining that judicial rulings alone rarely support an allegation of bias).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5907

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD P. KAKALIA, No. 24-5907 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00390-LEK-WRP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF HAWAII; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Edward P. Kakalia appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment

order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kakalia’s motion

for reconsideration because Kakalia failed to establish any basis for relief. See id.

at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kakalia’s contention that the district

court was biased. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)

(explaining that judicial rulings alone rarely support an allegation of bias).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5907

Related

Liteky v. United States

510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1994)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kakalia v. USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kakalia-v-usa-ca9-2026.